[colliric]

The same lobbies, politicians and corporations defending rabidly no-fault divorce are many if not all of the lobbies, politicians and corporations pushing for Gay Marriage, are not religious groups(and even oppose Religion in alot of cases) and pushing a heavy anti-male agenda(because the Husband stands to positively gain out of a streamlined less common divorce custody system). Meanwhile those pushing for abolition of no-fault divorce are the same minority groups opposing same-sex unions, supporting the human rights of the male sex(including equal treatment of men in the family court system) and are usually also groups that oppose Abortion or support it being a highly regulated choice made by both partners. Mostly are also supported by a religious backing.

This is my point. It's hard to see a logic in opposing "one over the other" when you realize the lobby groups are drawn up like this.

The lack of debate over no-fault divoce is due to it not being pushed as a current battleground by the same left-leaning groups who see the legislation as a "Victory", and also because the right-leaning groups opposing it are usually fighting other more current controversial battles like Abortion, Euthanasia and Gay Marriage. They both have Limited resources.

[Pants-of-dog]

I like no fault divorce. It makes it very easy for my wife to leave me if she wanted. This way, I know she could walk out that door any moment if she wanted to. The fact that she sticks around means she wants to stick around. I like that. I like knowing she sticks around becuase she wants to.

Anyway, this survey (because it is not binding, it is just a really expensive survey) is immaterial. If a gay couple wanted to challenge the lack of SSM in Australia, they would almost certainly win, regardless of the opinion of the majority.

[colliric]

No they wouldn't. They'd have zero legal recourse, as Australia isn't setup that way.

Marriage is not constitutional in Australia, it is instead covered by the 1961 Marriage Act which is worded clearly to indicate it is between a Male and a Female, hence no court could make such a ruling as was made in the United States.

It must pass by an act of Parliament, the passage of which may be assisted in speed by the survey result. The government made the right decision to poll accurately the public opinion. It will help pass the bill faster.

[redcarpet]

The loser is the tax payer as usual.

Aren't they suffering from a non-binding survey the federal Parliament can ignore anyway?

There was no demand for a plebiscite/survey for no-penalty divorce to be legalised. It was done by Parliament in a free vote and same can be done for same-gender marriage of two consenting adults.

[SolarCross]

I like no fault divorce. It makes it very easy for my wife to leave me if she wanted. This way, I know she could walk out that door any moment if she wanted to. The fact that she sticks around means she wants to stick around. I like that. I like knowing she sticks around becuase she wants to.

That's fine until children enter the picture, casual divorces affect them the most.

[Heisenberg]

The same lobbies, politicians and corporations defending rabidly no-fault divorce are many if not all of the lobbies, politicians and corporations pushing for Gay Marriage, are not religious groups(and even oppose Religion in alot of cases) and pushing a heavy anti-male agenda(because the Husband stands to positively gain out of a streamlined less common divorce custody system). Meanwhile those pushing for abolition of no-fault divorce are the same minority groups opposing same-sex unions, supporting the human rights of the male sex(including equal treatment of men in the family court system) and are usually also groups that oppose Abortion or support it being a highly regulated choice made by both partners. Mostly are also supported by a religious backing.

This is my point. It's hard to see a logic in opposing "one over the other" when you realize the lobby groups are drawn up like this.

The lack of debate over no-fault divoce is due to it not being pushed as a current battleground by the same left-leaning groups who see the legislation as a "Victory", and also because the right-leaning groups opposing it are usually fighting other more current controversial battles like Abortion, Euthanasia and Gay Marriage. They both have Limited resources.

OK, I'll try making the point another way: if marriage really meant a lifelong commitment with divorce being made very difficult, do you still think there would be a big push for same sex marriage? Note that the same sex marriage movement was nonexistent before no fault divorce became widespread.

The point is that once your side concedes no-fault divorce (which it already has - how many Liberal/National governments have there been since the 1975 divorce law, and how many have even attempted to reverse it?), it has already conceded the essential point of the "sanctity of marriage". If marriage is a lifelong commitment, the fact that one-third or more end within a few years makes a mockery of the institution.

By the way, I love the idea that same sex marriage is a "more controversial" issue. In the UK, there are about 26 times more divorces than same sex marriages every year. Same sex marriages account for roughly 2% of all marriages, and religious institutions aren't compelled to perform them. It's completely trivial.

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

[Godstud]

Please stop with the Bible passages. They have nothing to do with a reasonable and logical argument. They are, simply put, SHITE.

[Heisenberg]

If you'd bothered read my post, you'd have noticed that the Bible passage is there to illustrate the point, and is not the basis of it.

Of course, expecting people to actually read posts on a political discussion board often proves too much to ask.

[Godstud]

Sorry, but I see Bible passages and I cringe, and recoil, automatically. It's not your fault. It's an automatic reaction, on my part.

[Heisenberg]

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

[Hong Wu]

Dat marriage thread.

In Taoist philosophy you have the male principle which overtly dominates the female principle, which subtly dominates the male principle in return. I'm not married but I would think that a good marriage is somewhat like this. Most homosexual marriages don't seem to work out and no major religion or traditional philosophy supports homosexuality because it's in some way or another viewed as a perversion of the ideal relationship. Obviously not everyone is going to have or even like the ideal relationship but that doesn't mean society shouldn't treat some things as being better than others. The refusal to recognize any kind of healthy hierarchy is one way to describe what is ruining the west right now. No hierarchy of any kind can be acknowledged; obviously they are still there and many of them are dysfunctional, like the constant hypocrisy coming out of Hollyweird on sexual behavior and private jet environmentalism but those aren't good hierarchies, they are what you might call acts of social brutality.

I think I may have hit on something with that term, social brutality. That's basically what endlessly guilt tripping SJWs are like. Merciless and shameless brutality on the social and psychological level, never willing to let anyone express even the smallest bit of probity.

In sum I think that a society which doesn't allow people to declare that things which are good for it are ranked more highly than things that aren't is not going to do well in the long run.

[Pants-of-dog]

No they wouldn't. They'd have zero legal recourse, as Australia isn't setup that way.

Marriage is not constitutional in Australia, it is instead covered by the 1961 Marriage Act which is worded clearly to indicate it is between a Male and a Female, hence no court could make such a ruling as was made in the United States.

It must pass by an act of Parliament, the passage of which may be assisted in speed by the survey result. The government made the right decision to poll accurately the public opinion. It will help pass the bill faster.

No. Australia is a Commoneealth nation with a Westminster political system, right?

So is Canada, and that is how it happened here. If a gay couple took the 1961 Marriage Act to the Australian Supreme Court, it would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional.

----------------

That's fine until children enter the picture, casual divorces affect them the most.

Won't someone think of the children!

[SolarCross]

Won't someone think of the children!

Laughing at suffering children, some moral crusader you are.

Then again you are a big fan of killing children if they are inconvenient.

[Pants-of-dog]

Laughing at suffering children, some moral crusader you are.

Then again you are a big fan of killing children if they are inconvenient.

And a complete lack of any intelligent rebuttal from you. Lol.

Let me know if you have an argument about gay marriage.

[colliric]

No. Australia is a Commoneealth nation with a Westminster political system, right?

So is Canada, and that is how it happened here. If a gay couple took the 1961 Marriage Act to the Australian Supreme Court, it would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional.

Nope.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-12/h ... ws/5152168

Responsiblity to make legislative changes to the Marriage act lies solely with Federal Parliament.

High(Supreme) Court ruled on it already. Presumably this means that Australia's Marriage Act is more clearly written than the Canadian one, and that Quebec did not declare gay Marriage legal against the Federal Government's wishes.

That's what happened in Australia. ACT rebelled against the Federal Government and was subsequently taken to Court and squashed.

Only way to change it is by amending the federal Marriage Act.

[Pants-of-dog]

Wow. I had no idea Australia was such a screwed up land of bigotry.

[SolarCross]

And a complete lack of any intelligent rebuttal from you. Lol.

I said:

That's fine until children enter the picture, casual divorces affect them the most.

to which you replied:

Won't someone think of the children!

So in fact it was yourself that offered the "complete lack of an intelligent rebuttal" (as usual). Look up "psychological projection".

Also try not to be so retarded all the time; you are making the left look really bad.

[colliric]

Wow. I had no idea Australia was such a fucked up land of bigotry.

No, we just have a stronger court supported Federal Government than you do. The Federal government rarely loses court battles on Federal Acts with the state governments.

It didn't come before the court because of a Gay Couple challenging the Feds, it came before the court because Canberra saw this as a traditional "undermine us at every turn" state/territory government power grab. Very different situation.

Plus I'm guessing that when it came before your courts you had a Same-Sex Marriage supporting government too just like the USA.

[redcarpet]

On Q&A a No sided man dodges the issues in the question entirely. As usual.

"Now you, Mr. Canavan, have criticised my community as being delicate little flowers who need to grow a spine in the face of abuse. Isn't the role of leadership to support society's most vulnerable, rather than kick them while they're down in hopes of some political point scoring?" the young man asked, his voice quaking, during the Monday installment of the Australian Broadcasting Corp.'s QandA program.

An insightful review on the No-campaigner's tactics;

They insisted we have this postal survey, which ABS data this week showed 57.5 per cent of eligible voters have participated in thus far.

But the ‘no’ camp describes arguments put forward by the ‘yes’ side as imposing, jammed down their throat. Leaflets comparing homosexuality to child abuse, a mental disorder and some sort of stain on modern society are just free speech though.

A ‘vote yes’ text message was an invasion of privacy, they cried just a week after writing “VOTE NO” in the sky above Sydney.

These are the same people who plan on sending a letter to every household in the country but were suddenly worried about an SMS and its impingement on the sanctity of the mobile phone inbox.

And then just days later, they sent a text of their own.

The ‘no’ camp have been in hysterics about how gay marriage will somehow erode freedom of speech. In the next breath, they called for an award-winning musician to be banned from performing his chart-topping song at the NRL Grand Final.

It was a suggestion that would be at home in some Communist dictatorship where messaging is carefully controlled. You know, the sort of socialist utopia that strident ‘no’ campaigners warn gay marriage will cause.

They trot out the few people of prominence who oppose equal marriage but screech like banshees when the ‘yes’ side does the same.

They whinge about being silenced by the media, even though analysis shows they’re receiving four times the coverage.

They say they’re being outspent, when analysis of ad buying shows that’s a blatant lie.

They cry poor, saying they’re running on the smell of an oily rag, when they’re receiving millions from hard-core evangelical churches in America.

They tell ‘yes’ supporters struggling with the disgraceful tone of this debate to grow a spine and stop being so precious, then paint themselves as the victims of bullying.

They demand the ‘yes’ camp “control its extremist supporters” but refuse to condemn instances of horrific violence, abuse, homophobia and harassment from ‘no’ supporters.

They describe shocking incidents of violent homophobia as not reflective of the ‘no’ campaign, and then try to link a random stand-alone incident to the ‘yes’ side.

The hypocrisy and rantings is brazen.

[Pants-of-dog]

I said:

to which you replied:

So in fact it was yourself that offered the "complete lack of an intelligent rebuttal" (as usual). Look up "psychological projection".

Also try not to be so retarded all the time; you are making the left look really bad.

Sorry, I should have clarified that you had nothing intelligent to say when you said:

Laughing at suffering children, some moral crusader you are.

Then again you are a big fan of killing children if they are inconvenient.

...because that is really just a bunch of ad hominems.

Did you want me to say something about the kids?

Yes, divorce is hard on kids, but that does not change the fact that no fault divorce means my wife stays with me because she wants to.

------------------

No, we just have a stronger court supported Federal Government than you do. The Federal government rarely loses court battles on Federal Acts with the state governments.

It didn't come before the court because of a Gay Couple challenging the Feds, it came before the court because Canberra saw this as a traditional "undermine us at every turn" state/territory government power grab. Very different situation.

Plus I'm guessing that when it came before your courts you had a Same-Sex Marriage supporting government too just like the USA.

Actually, I read the Court decision. It was about whether or not states could write laws that are inconsistent with federal law. It is not about whether or the 1961 marriage law is constitutional.

So, if a gay couple did challenge that law because of its obvious unconstitutionality, they would probably win.

Your description here seems to corroborate my understanding.